Sec'y of State Cord Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc.

340 So.3d 569

SECRETARY OF STATE CORD BYRD, et al., Appellants,

v.BLACK VOTERS MATTER CAPACITY BUILDING INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 1D22-1470

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2022

Mohammad O. Jazil, Michael Beato, and Gary V. Perko of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC, Tallahassee; and Bradley R. McVay and Ashley E. Davis, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, for Appellant Secretary of State Cord Byrd.

Daniel E. Nordby, George N. Meros, and Tara R. Price of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee; and Carlos Rey and Jason Rojas, Florida Senate, Tallahassee, for Florida Senate Appellants.

Andy Bardos of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida House Appellants.

Frederick S. Wermuth and Thomas A. Zehnder of King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando; and Christina A. Ford of Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Henry C. Whitaker, Solicitor General, Tallahassee; Jeffrey Paul DeSousa and Daniel W. Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitors General, Tallahassee; David M. Costello, Assistant Solicitor General, Tallahassee; and Bilal Ahmed Faruqui, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Attorney General Ashley Moody.

Per Curiam.

We recently had this case before us to consider the secretary of state's emergency motion to review the trial court's vacatur of an automatic stay. See Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc. , No. 1D22-1470, 339 So.3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA May 27, 2022). The stay had gone into effect when the secretary appealed the trial court's temporary injunction order. The temporary injunction on review would require the secretary to administer the 2022 congressional election using a redistricting plan drafted and proposed by the appellees and adopted by the trial court. The secretary would have to use that plan in place of the redistricting plan reflected in Senate Bill 2-C, which was enacted by the Legislature and approved by the governor earlier this year.

In our granting of the secretary's motion and reinstatement of the stay, we noted that "[i]n cases like this, the stay and the temporary injunction on appeal go hand in hand, so naturally we consider them together." Byrd , 339 So.3d at 1084. The analysis began with the following observation:

The temporary injunction before us on appeal does not just return the parties to the condition that existed before the subject matter at the center of the present controversy arose, i.e. , before SB 2-C became law. The order does much more. It gives the appellees affirmative relief by requiring the secretary to conduct the 2022 congressional elections under an entirely new, unenacted plan recently proposed by the appellees during the nascent litigation. In the order, the circuit court even acknowledges that it is crafting a remedy for the appellees until there can be a trial. The grant of this provisional remedy, unmoored from an adjudication, was an unauthorized exercise of judicial discretion, making the temporary injunction unlawful on its face.

Id. , 339 So.3d at 1073.

We recognized at the time that the parties already had significantly briefed the validity of the temporary injunction on the merits in the context of the secretary's motion. Most, if not all, of the relevant record had been submitted for our consideration. In the interest of making efficient use of time and judicial resources, we closed our opinion with a direction that the parties tell us "whether any additional briefing or argument is necessary before the court disposes of the appeal of the non-final order on the merits." Id. , 339 So.3d at 1084. The parties have responded that no further briefing on the merits of the appeal is necessary. In turn, we are prepared to dispose of this...